School Improvement Grant
Section 1003(g)
Cohort 4—Fiscal Years2014, 2015, and 2016
Local Educational AgencyRequest for Applications
Applications are due to the California Department of Education no later than 4 p.m. on
September 8, 2016
California Department of Education
Improvement and Accountability Division
School Turnaround Office
1430 N Street, Suite 6208
Sacramento, CA 95814-5901
916-319-0833
Table of Contents
Timeline
A. Overview and Purpose
B. Available Funds
C. Eligibility
D. Funding Levels and Priority
E. Grant Options
F. Duration of the Grant
G. School Improvement Intervention Models
H. State-determined Intervention Model
I. Evidence-based Strategies
J. Three Phases of Implementation
K. Local Educational Agency Monitoring and Oversight of School Improvement Grant Funded Schools
L. Reporting and Program Accountability and Evaluation
M. Grant Renewal Decisions
N. Fiscal Operations
O. Selection, Process, and Scoring
P. Submission of Applications
Q. Application Requirements
Section I: Introduction
Application Cover Sheet
Schools to Be Served
Waiver…………......
General Assurances, Sub-grant Conditions and Assurances, and Certifications
Executive Summary
Section II: Descriptive Information
Section III: Annual Student Performance and Progress Goals
SIG Form 1a—Annual Student Performance and Progress Goals
SIG Form 1b—Annual Student Performance and Progress Goals
Section IV: Implementation Charts
SIG Form 2—Implementation Charts (Required)
Section V: Implementation Charts
SIG Form 3—Budgets (Required)
Appendix A: Object of Expenditure Codes
Appendix B: Planning and Pre-implementation Activities
Appendix C: California State-determined Intervention Model
Appendix D: School Improvement Grant Application Checklist
Appendix E: Application-Scoring Sheet
Appendix F: School Improvement Grant Rubric
1
Revised Timeline
A number of important dates are identified below for local educational agencies (LEAs) or chartering authorities intending to apply for School Improvement Grant (SIG) funds.
Details / Dates- Request State Board of Education (SBE) approval to submit California’s SIG fiscal years (FYs) 2015 and 2016 Application for New Awards to the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
- Notification of Funding
- Submit California’s SIG Application for FYs 2015 and 2016 to the ED for approval
- *Post ProposedDraft LEA Request for Applications (RFA) to the California Department of Education (CDE) Web site
- Include notification that the list of eligible schools will be provided in June/July 2016
- CDE will work with the ED for approval of California’s SIG Application
- Submit California’s list of eligible schools to the ED and post to the CDE SIG Web page
- Webinar and Technical Assistance Sessions (Application Walkthrough)
- LEA RFA is due to the CDE
- LEA RFA Reader’s Conference
- The CDE will notify LEAs of approval status
- Sub-grant Award Notification letters sent to new SIG sub-grantees
- Award period
*Pre ED Approval
1
A. Overview and Purpose
Hereafter, the CDE refers to the CDE operating under the policy direction of the SBE. For information regarding the definition of terms used in this document refer to the ED SIG Application Web document at
The SIG, authorized under Section 1003(g) of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), provides funding, through state educational agencies (SEAs), to eligible LEAs, and independent charter schools that receive Title I funds and have at least one eligible school identified for SIG funding.
To receive a SIG sub-grant, an LEA must submit an application to the CDE that complies with the provisions herein. These funds are intended to support research-based, effective, and sustainable school improvement activities that increase the academic performance and progress of all students attending a low-performing school as measured by the state assessments in reading/English language arts (ELA) and mathematics.
All LEAs and schools approved to receive a FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 SIG will be a part of California’s fourth cohort of schools implementing the SIG. This group will be known as “Cohort 4.”
Before completing and submitting its application for funding, LEAs are strongly encouraged to review the FY 2014 SIG final requirements at the federal Guidance on the SIG located at
B. Available Funds
Approximately $174 million is available to California for sub-awards to LEAs beginning in the 2016–17 school year (SY). The funds are available for obligation from November 3, 2016, through September 30, 2021. Continuation funding beyond the first year or planning year of the grant cycle is contingent upon the CDE’s approval of an LEA’s Renewal Application, and continued ED allocations to the State.
C. Eligibility
California has defined Tier I schools as the lowest 5 percent of elementary, middle, or high schools that are identified as being in Program Improvement (PI) in the 2015–16 SY and received Title I, Part A funds in 2014–15. The schools must be located in an LEA that has an approved LEA Plan and received Title I, Part A funds in 2014–15 or be a direct-funded charter school in order to be eligible to apply for a SIG.
California has defined Tier II schools as the lowest 5 percent of secondary schools (middle, and high) that are eligible for, but did not receive Title I, Part A funds in the 2014–15 SY and are not identified as being in PI in the 2015–16 SY. The school must be located in an LEA that has an approved LEA Plan and received Title I, Part A funds in 2014–15 or be a direct-funded charter school in order to be eligible to apply for a SIG.
California has defined Tier III schools as all remaining PI schools in the 2015–16 SY that were not identified in Tier I.
The Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools from the newly generated Cohort 4 List of Eligible Schools are eligible to apply for the FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 SIG funds. However, schools currently served with fiscal year (FY) 2012 Cohort 2 Year 4 Continuation or FY 2013 Cohort 3 SIG funds are not eligible to apply.
Under the FY 2014 SIG final requirements, published in the Federal Register in February 2015, SIG funds will focus on California’s Tier I and Tier II schools. In keeping with federal requirements, California has defined SIG eligible schools as those that are determined to have been among the lowest 5 percent of schools based on multiple indicators. The indicators that will be used to identify SIG eligible schools are:
- The 2015 English language arts (ELA) assessment results;
- The 2015 mathematic assessment results;
- The graduation rate, based on four years of data;
- The English learner indicator, based on two years of the California English Language Development Test assessment data;
- Suspension rates, based on two years of data; and
- College and career indicator.
California is in the process of creating a new multiple-measures accountability system. The performance for indicators three through six listed above will be based on combining status and change to place schools in one of the following five performance categories: (1) exemplary = 5; (2) good = 4; (3) adequate = 3; (4) concern = 2, or; (5) unsatisfactory = 1. Because California only has one year of assessment results from the new assessment program, the ELA and mathematics indicators will be based on status only.
An overall performance percent is calculated for each potential school by summing the school’s indicator scores and dividing this result by the highest possible score the school could have achieved (i.e., a score of 5 multiplied by the total number of applicable indicators for the school).
In accordance with ED guidance, high schools with graduation rates less than 60 percent for four consecutive years are identified for Tier I or Tier II of the SIG outside of the lowest five percent of schools. However, only high schools meeting California’s established minimum group size of 100 students based on the average number of valid test scores for 2015 are identified. The five percent number of schools is then calculated separately for PI schools by elementary, middle and high (PI-E/M/H) and for Title I eligible schools by middle and high (TIElig-M/H). Prior to identifying specific schools for the five percent, California will exclude from the list of potential schools those that do not meet California’s established minimum group size of 100 students based on the average number of valid test scores for 2015.
For each of the five groups of potential Tier I and Tier II schools (i.e., PI-E/M/H and TIElig-M/H), the five percent of schools with the lowest overall performance percent are chosen for Tier I and Tier II. When schools at and over the five percent “cut point” for their group have the same overall performance percent, participation rate and percent proficient ELA and math assessment results are used to break the ties.
In the Tier I and Tier II schools an LEA commits to serve, the LEA must implement one of the seven following school intervention models: (1) California State-determined Intervention Model; (2) Restart Model; (3) Evidence-based, Whole-school Reform Model; (4) Turnaround Model; (5) Transformation Model; (6) Closure Model, and; (7) Early Learning Model. A full description of the seven models is located in section G of this application.
Ifapproved, an LEA may also use SIG funds in Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are not identified as the lowest 5 percent of schools. These schools are referred to in the federal SIG guidance as Tier III schools. California does not anticipate having sufficient SIG funds to fund any Tier III schools.
D. Funding Levels and Priority
An LEA may request no less than $50,000, or more than $2 million, per year, up to five years of the grant period for each participating school. The maximum SIG award per school may not exceed $10 million in five years. Funding levels will reflect the LEA’s projected cost of implementing the selected intervention model for each school as approved by the SEA.
While the ED requires states to award SIG funds to serve all eligible schools that an LEA commits to serve, there may not be sufficient funding to serve all schools. As such,
LEA applications will be scored and ranked to determine funding eligibility. An LEA’s capacity to implement the selected school intervention model(s), and other factors, such as the number of schools served, distribution of eligible schools, the selected intervention model, demonstration of evidence-based strategies, and the overall quality of LEA applications will be considered in awarding funding.
In accordance with ED guidance, if the CDE determines that the LEA does not have the capacity to meet the needs of all schools in the application, the CDE reserves the right to fund the LEA to serve only a portion of the schools included in the LEA’s application. The CDE will only consider awarding funds to those LEAs that develop and submit a complete and comprehensive application that includes strategies likely to improve student performance and progress.
The CDE also reserves the right to fund applications at a lesser amount if the application can be implemented with less funding. Furthermore, if funding is not sufficient to fully fund all applications that merit award, the CDE reserves the right to fund applications at a lesser amount, identify which schools will receive funding, and award sub-grants accordingly.
The portion of an LEA’s SIG sub-grant for a school that is subject to closure is limited to the time necessary to close the school, usually one year or less. As such, funds allocated for a school closure would not be subject to renewal.
It is anticipated that California will not have sufficient funds to fund any Tier III schools.
E. Grant Options
An LEA may request up to five years of funding to cover implementation costs that support activities directly related to the selected intervention model requirements for each school served. At a minimum, three continuous years of full implementation is required. The grant options are listed below:
- Planning year: Up to one year (Optional)
- Full implementation: Threecontinuous years (Required)
- Sustainability activities: Up to two years (Optional)
Please note that an LEA may not receive more than five years of funding with respect to an individual school. Requested funds must be proportional to the proposed activities. For example, if an LEA receives a year of funding for planning and other pre-implementation activities, it may receive only one year of funding for activities related to sustaining reforms following full intervention implementation.
An LEA may request, and receive fewer than, five years of funding; however, an LEA receiving an award must fully implement the selected intervention model for at least three full years.Due to the timing of this grant, LEAs are strongly encouraged to elect to implement a planning year in order to more successfully carry out full implementation activities of the selected intervention model.
When developing its budget, the LEA should request no more than 10 percent of its total proposed award for planning and/or pre-implementation activities.
F. Duration of the Grant
Funds must be expended by the following timelines identified in the table below:
Year / DurationPlanning Year / November 3, 2016–June 30, 2017
Full Implementation and Sustainability Years / November 3, 2016–September 30, 2021
G. School Improvement Intervention Models
An LEA that wishes to receive a SIG must identify, select, and implement one of seven school intervention models for each school served. Below is a list of the seven SIG models available for California’s FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 Cohort 4 SIG program:
- California State-determined Intervention Model
- Restart Model
- Evidence-based, Whole-school Reform Model
- Turnaround Model
- Transformation Model
- Closure Model
- Early Learning Model
Please note that an LEA seeking to use SIG funds to implement the Evidence-based, Whole-school Reform model in a school must choose from among the models reviewed and identified by the ED as meeting applicable requirements. The list of ED-approved Evidence-based, Whole-school Reform Models from which an LEA may select is located at
Before identifying and selecting an intervention model, LEAs are strongly advised to review the implementation requirements for each model. A complete description of the model requirements is includedin the Guidance on School Improvement Grants for awards made with FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 funds locatedat
H. State-determined Intervention Model
California recognizes that each school in the State comes with distinct local needs based in part on demographics and geography. California’s State-determined Intervention Model (CA SDIM) is more than a one-size-fits-all solution. It provides a framework for linking student growth and performance outcomes to impactful decisions that drive continuous improvement for all students, including but not limited to, socio-economically disadvantaged students, English language learners, and students who receive special education services.
The strength of the CA SDIM lies in the flexibility afforded to SIG LEAs to address student needs locally, via implementation of strategies consistent with both school improvement research and the SIG requirements. A California LEA seeking to improve student performance and progress in a low-performing school can now tailor much of its school reform efforts to suit the identified needs of its SIG school(s).
Funded LEAs that elect to implement the CA SDIM from the seven available models, in any one of its SIG schools, must elect to implement a planning year and select a Lead Partner from the following list to collaborate with regarding implementation activities:
- Local County Office of Education;
- Regional System of District and School Support Lead County Office of Education; or
- The California Collaborative for Educational Excellence.
Please note: Implementation of the CA SDIM, in partnership with one of the Lead Partners listed above, will serve as a pilot for future school improvement efforts in California. LEAs that choose to implement the CA SDIM will be given competitive preference in determining grant awards. In selecting this model, the LEA must assure that during the planning year it will identify and select one of the Lead Partners listed above, and maintain its partnership throughout the grant period.
A full description of the CA SDIM and its required components is located in Appendix Cof this application.
I. Evidence-based Strategies
Regardless of the intervention model selected, a funded LEA must implement, to the extent practicable, in accordance with its selected SIG intervention model, one or more evidence-based strategies. Evidence-based strategies are part of the requirements to determine if an LEA is strongly committed to implementing, fully and effectively, its selected intervention model(s). If there are not sufficient SIG funds to grant awards to each LEA with eligible schools, the CDE will take into account the extent to which an LEA applying for a SIG award demonstrates in its application that it will implement one or more evidence-based strategies.
J. Three Phases of Implementation
- Planning Year and Pre-implementation Activities
The planning year must include up to one academic school year for planning and pre-implementation activities. The planning year is the school year prior to the first year of full SIG implementation, which is the 2016–17 SY.
An LEA that elects to use up to one year of funding for planning and pre-implementation activities must include a description of the planning and pre-implementation activities it will undertake, a timeline for implementing those activities, and a description of how the activities will lead to successful implementation of the selected intervention in its application to the CDE (Form 2a).
The amount of SIG funding needed for planning and pre-implementation activities should be less than the amount of funding needed to support full implementation of the selected intervention model in each school for each of the three school years. The LEA should reserve up to 10 percent of its total award for planning and pre-implementation activities.
Please note that an intervention model must be selected as part of the application process even if the LEA is selecting to implement a planning year.